Turn on thread page Beta

Sinister sausage - will you still eat processed meat? watch

  • View Poll Results: Will you still eat processed/red meat?
    I'll still eat it
    310
    29.47%
    I'll cut down the amount of meat I eat
    265
    25.19%
    I'm going vegetarian/vegan
    121
    11.50%
    Don't care. Everything gives you cancer these days
    356
    33.84%

    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by djbrowniej19)
    I will still continue to eat red and processe meat. If you overdo anything it can lead to an illness or disease. Everything in moderation.
    Like smoking?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Farm_Ecology)
    Like smoking?
    Ok not with smoking and other things added to the body that cause nothing but harm. But with food in general, as almost all food contains some form of nutrition, whether it be big/small.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by djbrowniej19)
    Ok not with smoking and other things added to the body that cause nothing but harm. But with food in general, as almost all food contains some form of nutrition, whether it be big/small.
    Smoking only does harm?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Smoking only does harm?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    It overwhelmingly does harm yeah. I wouldn't suggest anyone start smoking just to ward off ulcerative colitis lol

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jeremy1988)
    Why is it that only boring foods and unpleasant activities like exercise are healthy? About the only thing that feels good that's also good for you is sleeping.

    If I were to do everything in a healthy manner, my life would be like this. I would use electronic devices as little as possible, have no cell phone, spend most of my time at the gym exercising, go for walks at night or on cloudy days, eat nothing but fresh, organically grown plants, drink only purified water, and bathe without soap or shampoo.

    Healthy life is so awful that after a few weeks of living that way, you might start to wish you were dead. LOL.

    It seems like almost everything that's pleasant or brought to us by a new technology is also bad for us somehow. It's like healthy lifestyles force you to live like it's several hundred years ago, at least, but with additional restrictions based on new knowledge.


    Well, I suppose we're all going to eventually transition into a spartan lifestyle... not. I mean, in essence, doing all of that is basically the way people lived a long time ago. Which is really boring. But my sister is really allergic to gluten, so she has to be careful about what she eats, and let me tell you... most gluten free things are pretty gross (non-vegetable and non-meat products are what I'm referring to). I could live with basically everything you said if society would allow me to, aside for bathing without soap or shampoo. That starts to feel gross after a while.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viddy9)
    The responses to this report are entirely predictable, and in line with research into human cognitive biases. If something comes along and challenges people's cherished beliefs (or indeed food products), they start coming up with appallingly bad arguments.

    "It'll be something new in 5 years/months/weeks" - if new evidence comes along suggesting that something we had not previously considered to cause cancer actually does, then yes, it will be. That's how science works. The notion that something new is said to cause cancer every few months or years is doubtful, especially considering that the peer-reviewed scientific literature has indicated for some time that processed meat and, to a lesser extent, unprocessed red meat, increases one's risk of cancer (and overall mortality and cardiovascular disease, as well as Type 2 diabetes).

    "This is social engineering by fascists" - no, it's not. Nobody's saying that you should completely cut out red and processed meat. If you want to, it is simply recommended to just look at how much you're eating and replace it, on occasion, with healthier options such as whole grains, legumes and nuts.

    "We're all going to die eventually" - this is almost certainly true. But, by this logic, we should just close down all the hospitals and stop saving lives because "we're all going to die eventually". That was the point of this report - to increase public awareness to help save lives, particularly as surveys suggest that 40% of men eat more than 90g of red and processed meat a day.

    "Everything in moderation" - everything? Mercury, cyanide and tobacco in moderation? The term "moderation" could also be very self-serving: someone who eats 100g of red and processed meat a day will probably have a very different idea of what moderation is than somebody eats red and processed meat once a week or so.

    "These health experts want to suck all the joy out of life" - if the only sources of joy people have are tobacco, alcohol and red and processed meat, then some people's lives are more glum than I had previously thought.
    If anyone has misunderstood the science here it's you. This is epidemiological research that does not indicate causation, and it's quite well understood that there are a range of confounding factors that lower the risk of cancers in non-meat eaters. Even if processed meat indeed is causative for CRC, it seems the difference in cancer risk between those who consume no processed meat and those who consume it daily, based on the current data, is very small, around 1%.

    So really, you can see why people criticise sensationalist headlines like this, claiming that " X WILL GIVE YOU CANCER" when the reality is nowhere near as sinister. If you are a healthy, active individual who consumes a balanced diet with sufficient amounts of vitamins, minerals, phytonutrients, fibre etc. then you hardly need to give your meat consumption a second thought, unless you are really taking to absurd levels.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IamJacksContempt)
    Because that's comparable...
    It is 100% comparable.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by VV Cephei A)
    If anyone has misunderstood the science here it's you. This is epidemiological research that does not indicate causation, and it's quite well understood that there are a range of confounding factors that lower the risk of cancers in non-meat eaters. Even if processed meat indeed is causative for CRC, it seems the difference in cancer risk between those who consume no processed meat and those who consume it daily, based on the current data, is very small, around 1%.

    So really, you can see why people criticise sensationalist headlines like this, claiming that " X WILL GIVE YOU CANCER" when the reality is nowhere near as sinister. If you are a healthy, active individual who consumes a balanced diet with sufficient amounts of vitamins, minerals, phytonutrients, fibre etc. then you hardly need to give your meat consumption a second thought, unless you are really taking to absurd levels.
    Very good post - people mock the "eh, everything causes cancer these days" approach but frankly you'll be able to find research linking most things with an increased risk of some sort of cancer. That the risk is increased isn't what you should be looking at, it's what the risk is increased to and whether that's a significant risk.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by VV Cephei A)
    If anyone has misunderstood the science here it's you. This is epidemiological research that does not indicate causation, and it's quite well understood that there are a range of confounding factors that lower the risk of cancers in non-meat eaters. Even if processed meat indeed is causative for CRC, it seems the difference in cancer risk between those who consume no processed meat and those who consume it daily, based on the current data, is very small, around 1%.

    So really, you can see why people criticise sensationalist headlines like this, claiming that " X WILL GIVE YOU CANCER" when the reality is nowhere near as sinister. If you are a healthy, active individual who consumes a balanced diet with sufficient amounts of vitamins, minerals, phytonutrients, fibre etc. then you hardly need to give your meat consumption a second thought, unless you are really taking to absurd levels.
    The studies I've cited have controlled for a range of factors, and there are now a range of known mechanisms by which processed meat would cause cancer.

    I've not made any claims about the size of the effect or whether sensationalist headlines were justified, but I am saying that those specific arguments are not logical.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by redferry)
    It is 100% comparable.
    The negative health effects of eating meat are no where near as bad or as prominent as obesity. Stop talking nonsense.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viddy9)
    The studies I've cited have controlled for a range of factors, and there are now a range of known mechanisms by which processed meat would cause cancer.

    I've not made any claims about the size of the effect or whether sensationalist headlines were justified, but I am saying that those specific arguments are not logical.
    You posted cohort studies - again, epidemiological research from which it would be wrong to draw any conclusions; there are always unaccounted confounding factors which could easily explain the very small increase in cancer risk we see in meat eaters. Most of the hypothesised mechanisms I am aware of are either not directly relevant to meat as a whole (eg. carcinogenic compounds in charred meat, & insulin resistance in obesity and carcinogenesis), or fairly well established from the most recent research not to cause cancer (eg. nitrate/nitrites).

    Even if those arguments you criticised are silly, it is just as silly to make any kind of claims that red/processed meat conclusively cause CRC.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by animayo)
    This information has been around for so long, how has it only been published in the news now?
    news blackout imposed by meat companies...
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stiff Little Fingers)
    Very good post - people mock the "eh, everything causes cancer these days" approach but frankly you'll be able to find research linking most things with an increased risk of some sort of cancer. That the risk is increased isn't what you should be looking at, it's what the risk is increased to and whether that's a significant risk.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    at least here its a significant risk.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Vegetarian so not going to change my diet. I can't exclude processed meat as I don't eat any.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by JeremyOU)
    at least here its a significant risk.
    A risk of under six percent when the meat free diet still presents a five percent risk is not significant; in real terms it's a 0.9% extra risk, not worth taking seriously

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stiff Little Fingers)
    A risk of under six percent when the meat free diet still presents a five percent risk is not significant; in real terms it's a 0.9% extra risk, not worth taking seriously

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    true.
    still 3% of those eating red/processed meat will get cancer, and therefore one in hundred people who eat red/processed meat will die from it.
    hope I'm one of the 99.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by JeremyOU)
    true.
    still 3% of those eating red/processed meat will get cancer, and therefore one in hundred people who eat red/processed meat will die from it.
    hope I'm one of the 99.
    Three percent would be three in every hundred which is still quite small, and cancer is very survivable these days.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stiff Little Fingers)
    Three percent would be three in every hundred which is still quite small, and cancer is very survivable these days.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    yes one in three people who get cancer die, so 3% get cancer and 1% die
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IamJacksContempt)
    The negative health effects of eating meat are no where near as bad or as prominent as obesity. Stop talking nonsense.
    I never once mentioned obesity...
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Smoking only does harm?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Well the temporary ever shortening relieval of nicotine withdrawal symptoms does create a "pleasure" response.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you think parents should charge rent?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.